Fuel EXe Trek Fuel EXe Megathread!

robby said:
I have the Zeb 160mm on my EX-e; it's a fairly popular upgrade among folks who are heavier, ride harder, or veer a bit toward Enduro. To be totally honest it's probably wasted on me as a less aggressive rider, but it was a handy arrangement with the LBS where I bought the bike and I figured there was little downside.

If you are attached to the AirWiz functionality, it's not officially sanctioned, but you can order Part #11.4018.083.007 ("Top Cap Assy AW 38mm") from Trek to go with the Zeb. It's about $225 here in the US and will convert an OEM Zeb fork to an Airwiz version. You may also be able to find a Zeb Ultimate with Airwiz pulled off a Rail or Slash for a bit less.

If you go this route and are looking to unload your Lyrik, let me know. I've thought about swapping back to the stock config next time I'm due for a fork service.
Click to expand...
I’ve decided to upgrade both the Super Deluxe Ultimate (2023) and the Lyrik Ultimate (2023) to the latest and greatest.
I don’t know but I think I will keep 60mm travel on the shock instead of going for 62.5mm that I’ve seen some go for, as Trek only mentions 60mm in the owners manual. I don’t want to risk warranty issues.
I am curious though.. what would 2.5mm extra trave give me and/or take away in practical use of the bike on the trails?

For the fork I am torn between keeping 150mm or if I should extend it to 160mm travel.
Any upsides/downside going for 160mm?
Any upsides/downsides keeping it 150mm?

Would be nice if anyone with first hand experience could chime in. 😊
 
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
dark.Knight said:
I’ve decided to upgrade both the Super Deluxe Ultimate (2023) and the Lyrik Ultimate (2023) to the latest and greatest.
I don’t know but I think I will keep 60mm travel on the shock instead of going for 62.5mm that I’ve seen some go for, as Trek only mentions 60mm in the owners manual. I don’t want to risk warranty issues.
I am curious though.. what would 2.5mm extra trave give me and/or take away in practical use of the bike on the trails?

For the fork I am torn between keeping 150mm or if I should extend it to 160mm travel.
Any upsides/downside going for 160mm?
Any upsides/downsides keeping it 150mm?

Would be nice if anyone with first hand experience could chime in. 😊
Click to expand...
Might as well go to 160 mm in the front. That’s what I did to my Fox 36. I also put on a new Fox X2 shock with 65 mm of stroke on a medium frame with no clearance issues. That gives it 152 mm of travel in the rear, which goes good with 160 mm up front. So, with a 62.5 mm shock, you’re looking at about 146 mm of rear travel. I’ve experienced zero downsides to this, but it does make the bike more capable. As far as warranty goes, the shock I to I length remains the same. No one will ever know your shock has a longer stroke. I feel the EXes have to much weight on the front end, stock. So for me going to 160 mm up front solved that issue. In my opinion it’s not good to get to far apart with front to rear travel. So, if you stay with 150 mm up front I wouldn’t go any longer than 62.5 mm on the shock. If you go to 160 mm on the fork, then go to 65 mm on the shock.

My level of experience is, ex pro motocrosser and pretty close to that on a mountain bike. I feel pretty confident in my ability to set up suspension, at least for myself.
 
Last edited:
Long shot....... but, is anyone aware of a STEEL 30T 104 BCD chainring that I can fit to the E13 104 BCD spider that I have on my Trek Fuel EXE? Thanks in advance. Pic of alloy version attached for reference
1748215523519.png
 
dark.Knight said:
what would 2.5mm extra trave give me and/or take away in practical use of the bike on the trails?

For the fork I am torn between keeping 150mm or if I should extend it to 160mm travel.

Would be nice if anyone with first hand experience could chime in. 😊
Click to expand...
160mm fork will slacken your head angle out about .5d from stock, raise your BB a few mm, and slacken your seat tube slightly (moving the saddle forward can negate that). Subtle changes and no reason not to do it, unless you ride mostly flat trails.

Increasing the stroke on the rear shock doesn‘t change the shock length, so the geometry is mostly unaffected. However your BB will be lower at sag & bottom out (and it’s already pretty low).

The thing to be cautious of with the longer stroke shock is the potential of the reservoir hitting the downtube at full compression. This won’t be an issue with shocks that have a transverse/sideways resevoir- like the Ohlins & DVO shocks or the new 2025 fox shocks. People have said the vivid ultimate works but I wouldn’t go beyond 62.5 personally. Though it is a great shock.

IMO playing with volume spacers and sag is the best upgrade and inexpensive too.
 
Canyon Shawn said:
Has anyone out there fitted a Fox Transfer Neo 150 mm dropper to their medium EXe. I’m wondering if it fits. If you have how tall are you and where does the post sit in the frame? I’m 5’ 9” and I think it might be a tight fit.
Click to expand...
I don't have a Neo but I can insert an AXS Reverb 150 all the in the frame on my med Exe. I'm 5'8 and with 160 cranks I'd have to pull it out about 25mm to pedal comfortably. I can also put in a AXS Reverb 170 almost all the way in, except maybe 5mm and that ends up being perfect for me to pedal.
 
dark.Knight said:
I’ve decided to upgrade both the Super Deluxe Ultimate (2023) and the Lyrik Ultimate (2023) to the latest and greatest.
I don’t know but I think I will keep 60mm travel on the shock instead of going for 62.5mm that I’ve seen some go for, as Trek only mentions 60mm in the owners manual. I don’t want to risk warranty issues.
I am curious though.. what would 2.5mm extra trave give me and/or take away in practical use of the bike on the trails?

For the fork I am torn between keeping 150mm or if I should extend it to 160mm travel.
Any upsides/downside going for 160mm?
Any upsides/downsides keeping it 150mm?

Would be nice if anyone with first hand experience could chime in. 😊
Click to expand...
I don't think this should hold you back, but I'm noting it because you mentioned "warranty issues": a Zeb 160 is 576mm axle to crown, technically exceeding the Ex-e frame spec by 1mm. I don't see this creating material risk, and I suspect Trek wouldn't give you any grief about it... but if you did crack your headtube with that fork, they would be within their rights to deny a warranty claim.
 
Canyon Shawn said:
Might as well go to 160 mm in the front. That’s what I did to my Fox 36. I also put on a new Fox X2 shock with 65 mm of stroke on a medium frame with no clearance issues. That gives it 152 mm of travel in the rear, which goes good with 160 mm up front. So, with a 62.5 mm shock, you’re looking at about 146 mm of rear travel. I’ve experienced zero downsides to this, but it does make the bike more capable. As far as warranty goes, the shock I to I length remains the same. No one will ever know your shock has a longer stroke. I feel the EXes have to much weight on the front end, stock. So for me going to 160 mm up front solved that issue. In my opinion it’s not good to get to far apart with front to rear travel. So, if you stay with 150 mm up front I wouldn’t go any longer than 62.5 mm on the shock. If you go to 160 mm on the fork, then go to 65 mm on the shock.

My level of experience is, ex pro motocrosser and pretty close to that on a mountain bike. I feel pretty confident in my ability to set up suspension, at least for myself.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid it won’t be as nimble if go for 160mm travel, and it is very hard to lift the front wheel at the moment (to get ready for a manual). I guess it will be even harder to lift it if the wheel is even further away?
 
Last edited:
Emailsucks98 said:
160mm fork will slacken your head angle out about .5d from stock, raise your BB a few mm, and slacken your seat tube slightly (moving the saddle forward can negate that). Subtle changes and no reason not to do it, unless you ride mostly flat trails.

Increasing the stroke on the rear shock doesn‘t change the shock length, so the geometry is mostly unaffected. However your BB will be lower at sag & bottom out (and it’s already pretty low).

The thing to be cautious of with the longer stroke shock is the potential of the reservoir hitting the downtube at full compression. This won’t be an issue with shocks that have a transverse/sideways resevoir- like the Ohlins & DVO shocks or the new 2025 fox shocks. People have said the vivid ultimate works but I wouldn’t go beyond 62.5 personally. Though it is a great shock.

IMO playing with volume spacers and sag is the best upgrade and inexpensive too.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insights. Great info to think about.
Even lower BB with longer stroke on the shock isn’t that tempting at the moment.
I now have my bike in «low» (with 29" wheels) and I am considering to flip it to «high».

160mm travel on the fork is tempting though so I can have an even higher BB.
I don’t ride extreme trails though so 150mm is probably enough for my kind of riding, and as I stated I am afraid of struggeling more to lift the front wheel and to have a less nimble bike.
Not sure if I would notice it though.
That is why I ask you that knows about this stuff. 😊
 
robby said:
I don't think this should hold you back, but I'm noting it because you mentioned "warranty issues": a Zeb 160 is 576mm axle to crown, technically exceeding the Ex-e frame spec by 1mm. I don't see this creating material risk, and I suspect Trek wouldn't give you any grief about it... but if you did crack your headtube with that fork, they would be within their rights to deny a warranty claim.
Click to expand...
The fork with 160mm upgrade should be within the warranty.
What I was referring to is the 60mm travel of the rear shock.
The user manual says the the fork can have maximum of 160mm travel, but when describing the rear shock it is no maximum number, just 60mm as the only number.
 
Makus said:

Which aftermarket shocks are compatible?​

We know that the following shocks will fit. Other shocks may fit, as there is generous clearance, but should be checked for frame clearance at full suspension compression.
- Fox Float X
- Fox DHX
- RockShox Super Deluxe
- All coil shocks from Fox and RockShox

What size hardware is required for aftermarket shocks?​

205mm x 60mm eye-to-eye, 54mm x 10mm trunnion mount upper, 40mm x 8mm pin mount lower.
Click to expand...
That^^^ is after market with stock stroke, where do Trek state that a longer stroke shock cannot be fitted?
 
irie said:
Exactly where does Trek say that you can NOT fit a larger travel rear shock?
Click to expand...
These are the two places I found references to shock and fork stuff in the owners manual.
The fork specifies maximum, but the shock doesn’t have such information, and therefore they have specified that stroke shall be 60mm and nothing else. And that ‘s why I suspect that a warranty claim related to any kind of damage from installing i.e. a shock with 65mm stroke, you are on your own.

IMG_0729.jpeg IMG_0728.jpeg
 
Last edited:
dark.Knight said:
160mm travel on the fork is tempting though so I can have an even higher BB.
and as I stated I am afraid of struggeling more to lift the front wheel and to have a less nimble bike.
Not sure if I would notice it though.
That is why I ask you that knows about this stuff. 😊
Click to expand...
Especially if you can just purchase a new air shaft for your existing fork, no reason not to try going 160mm!
Anything that raises your bars will make it easier to get the front end up- increasing fork travel, adding spacers under your stem or higher rise bars.
 
Any member here tried the new Rockshox Super Deluxe XL Air can ? Any advantages over the progressive one ?
 
xetal said:
Any member here tried the new Rockshox Super Deluxe XL Air can ? Any advantages over the progressive one ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I use it. I've tried the standard progressive can, the linear can, and the linear Xl can. All on a super deluxe ultimate rc2t shock.

I prefer the linear Xl can. But there's not much difference between it and the linear can. It feels like the small bump sensitivity is a bit better on the linear Xl can.
 
Mteam said:
Yes, I use it. I've tried the standard progressive can, the linear can, and the linear Xl can. All on a super deluxe ultimate rc2t shock.

I prefer the linear Xl can. But there's not much difference between it and the linear can. It feels like the small bump sensitivity is a bit better on the linear Xl can.
Click to expand...
Any progressiveness at all ? Midstroke support compares best to the linear or progressive can ? Thanks.
 
xetal said:
Any progressiveness at all ? Midstroke support compares best to the linear or progressive can ? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It depends how many volume spacers you put in it. It can be configured to be slightly more linear than the linear air can or nearly as progressive as the progressive air can. Ie it's a single air can that can pretty much do the same as the linear aircan and the progressive air can depending on how many spacers you fill it with.

Rockshox has a graph comparing the spring curve of it with the linear and progressive air cans. I'll try and find it.

Here you go, see about 2 thirds of the way down this oage

www.sram.com

Rear Shock DebonAir+ - SRAM

Entwickelt, um genau den richtigen Ton zu treffen, basiert das neue DebonAir+ System auf der Idee der bestmöglichen Abstimmbarkeit. Um den Anforderung jedes Fahrertyps gerecht zu werden, kannst du bei DebonAir+ zwischen zwei unterschiedlichen Luftkammern und zwei Token-Optionen wählen. Hier...
www.sram.com www.sram.com
 
Mteam said:
It depends how many volume spacers you put in it. It can be configured to be slightly more linear than the linear air can or nearly as progressive as the progressive air can. Ie it's a single air can that can pretty much do the same as the linear aircan and the progressive air can depending on how many spacers you fill it with.

Rockshox has a graph comparing the spring curve of it with the linear and progressive air cans. I'll try and find it.

Here you go, see about 2 thirds of the way down this oage

www.sram.com

Rear Shock DebonAir+ - SRAM

Entwickelt, um genau den richtigen Ton zu treffen, basiert das neue DebonAir+ System auf der Idee der bestmöglichen Abstimmbarkeit. Um den Anforderung jedes Fahrertyps gerecht zu werden, kannst du bei DebonAir+ zwischen zwei unterschiedlichen Luftkammern und zwei Token-Optionen wählen. Hier...
www.sram.com www.sram.com
Click to expand...
Got it thanks for pointing this out,

Untitled.jpg
 
Canyon Shawn said:
Has anyone out there fitted a Fox Transfer Neo 150 mm dropper to their medium EXe. I’m wondering if it fits. If you have how tall are you and where does the post sit in the frame? I’m 5’ 9” and I think it might be a tight fit.
Click to expand...
I'm 5 9 with short legs and I can fit a 170mm reverb axs slammed into the frame
 
My APB bearings (the ones the rear axle goes through) are seized, will not turn at all. Has anyone replaced them? I tried to remove one but it feels like it is seized to the frame.
 
After 2 seasons these are the only suspension bearings that I had to replace. There is a retaining ring that holds the bearing on the brake side. It takes the right tools otherwise you risk damaging the chainstay
 
Yvon said:
After 2 seasons these are the only suspension bearings that I had to replace. There is a retaining ring that holds the bearing on the brake side. It takes the right tools otherwise you risk damaging the chainstay
Click to expand...
Saw the retaining ring & removed it. Don't have a proper bearing temoval tool, just bolts & washers which I've used successfully in the past on other bikes. Probably a job for my LBS Trek dealer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,728
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top